Apple Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]

[reactions]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Here we go again!

Wiki leaks > steve job's secret of hiding his bastard child.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Does it have to be all or nothing? What wikileaks did is equivalent to tossing the baby out with the bathwater. No critical thinking or analysis was applied to the content.

Exactly.

 

[HLdan]

Freedom Speech?? This is not a matter of Freedom of Speech. Classified documents are just that - classified. There's a reason that certain items are not meant for public release. You are extremely ignorant if you don't realize that keeping certain information classified allows us to enjoy our freedom and prevent foreign entities from infringing on it.

Also, the release of the info by WL has endangered the lives of dozens of people who are risking their lives for our freedom and way of life. Once again, if you don't realize that, then you've got some serious cognitive impairments.

For most things I'm all about transparency. However, I'm not so ignorant to think that everything should be public knowledge.

That's telling em brother!

 

[paul4339]

"We removed WikiLeaks because it violated developer guidelines. An app must comply with all local laws. It may not put an individual or target group in harms way."


> An app must comply with all local laws.
agree

> not put an individual or target group in harms way
not too sure... a lot of news puts groups in harms way... it just depends on which group you are in. doesn't it?

P.

 

[Swift]

So... the question still is...

What law has Wikileaks broken? Bradley Manning, as the source of the leaks, a member of the US military, has legal problems. But the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act. It has never been found unlawful to publish secrets -- that was the key finding of the Supreme Court in the case of the leaks of the Pentagon Papers, that established that Washington had been lying to us about Vietnam for many years. Do we now have an informal, de facto corporate "Official Secrets" act? News to me.

 

[Earendil]

What law has Wikileaks broken? Bradley Manning, as the source of the leaks, a member of the US military, has legal problems. But the U.S. has no Official Secrets Act. It has never been found unlawful to publish secrets -- that was the key finding of the Supreme Court in the case of the leaks of the Pentagon Papers, that established that Washington had been lying to us about Vietnam for many years. Do we now have an informal, de facto corporate "Official Secrets" act? News to me.

I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of it. At least not seriously. Most of us are focussed on ethics, a far more fun and vague topic

 

[blackpond]

Well, Apple has shown its true colours, that is, it like every American corporation are extensions of American foreign policy. Where are the cries of 'Freedom of Speech" that Americans so gallantly profess at every given opportunity, what happened to the telling truth. Shame on you Apple, you have left your 'Think Different' slogan in favour of the Orwellian state.

We also believe in protecting privacy.

 

[blackpond]

I understand why Apple and other corporations are opting out of helping to release this information. That doesn't mean, however, that they are opposed to it being released.

 

[fabianjj]

If I may step in and answer this one:
They made public, and actively publicized the release of a large quantity of documents that no one intended to see the light of day. Perhaps illegal acts are documented, perhaps civilians safety is compromised, but I see no evidence that wikileaks gives a flying frack which it is.

Everything being public would not be a good thing. We (or most) have an intelligent brain, and use it to consciously share information in particular circumstances, at particular times, with particular people. I would not want the would to know EVERYTHING about me, or everything I've written down. What is in those documents is the equivalent to reading the Governments diaries. You might find a few juicy bits of information that the public should be concerned with and address, but for the most part it's just dangerous information that the entire world now has, not just the American public. Making all information public is not a good idea for the individual, a working group, or a corporation. I don't know why anyone thinks a government is different, since it is made up of the previous groups.

And I don't care about how they "tried" to work with the government to censor it. Because after that "effort" they went on to do NOTHING. Exactly how many hours, days, or week of work is a single human life worth? By releasing every LAST page, wikileaks has determined that it's not even worth a minute of their time to minimize the risk of human life being lost. That to me raises huge ethical questions and strikes me as immoral. It may not break any laws, but that doesn't mean it's "right".

Just MHO...

They have put down hundreds of hours into trying to protect civilians, unlike those U.S. soldiers who couldn't wait 20 seconds for a civilian to cross the street before they blew up a building containing three suspected terrorists, killing an innocent bystander.

When such things happen, it is the duty of every honest man to report it so that people can be held responsible.

 

[tatonka]

I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of it. At least not seriously. Most of us are focussed on ethics, a far more fun and vague topic

Well .. Apple does though, right? I mean they removed the app because it allegedly is not complying with local laws ..

I don't agree with a lot that WikiLeaks or the founder does. But banning the app from the app store seems a weird move. I would have thought Apple had a little more of a backbone there.

T.

 

[res1233]

These people are committing treason. I hope they do get shut down. There is a reason for EVERY government to keep secrets. I wont feel safe until they're gone.

 

[blackpond]

Well .. Apple does though, right? I mean they removed the app because it allegedly is not complying with local laws ..

I don't agree with a lot that WikiLeaks or the founder does. But banning the app from the app store seems a weird move. I would have thought Apple had a little more of a backbone there.

T.

Apple doesn't make the law - and whether or not any law is being broken at all is yet to be determined by the folks who do make them.

Smart move to remove the app.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

They have put down hundreds of hours into trying to protect civilians, unlike those U.S. soldiers who couldn't wait 20 seconds for a civilian to cross the street before they blew up a building containing three suspected terrorists, killing an innocent bystander.

Cool next time there is a gang shoot out in my area, I am going to call a time out so I can get out of the way.

Look we all get what you are trying to say and none of can disagree in principal but come on the real world is a very murky place.

 

[Dmac77]

Reported your signature to get the Wikileaks support link removed.

I think I just peed myself

Let me see you go defend your abilities to say these comments... oh wait you can't. You are just another keyboard soldier who talks a big game.

Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. Then again you might be a voice recognition soldier, who literally talks a big game.

-Don

 

[Andronicus]

My reading comprehension is fine actually. I don't think he gets to pick and choose when someone leaks about him any more than others get to pick and choose when and how he leaks about them.

Smh. You're still failing.

 

[Earendil]

Well .. Apple does though, right? I mean they removed the app because it allegedly is not complying with local laws ..

Um, no. You had to have just made that up AND not read through this thread. There are at least two other good reasons, one of which has nothing to do with what the app actually does.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with a lot that WikiLeaks or the founder does. But banning the app from the app store seems a weird move. I would have thought Apple had a little more of a backbone there.

T.

A corporation doesn't need a backbone, they need profit. But this has nothing to do with Wikileaks as far as we know.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I think I just peed myself



Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black. Then again you might be a voice recognition soldier, who literally talks a big game.

-Don

Just for your information... I was accepted into the Air Force Academy in 1999. Shortly after that my grandmother (who I lived with) was diagnosed with Dimentia. I made the choice to ensure her final 3 years were comfortable instead of in a cold nursing home. My family comes from a long line of soldiers. From WWII, to Korea, Vietnam, etc. When my family came here from Korea they knew what a real tyranny was. When the Japanese came and massacred half of my family they came to America taunted and hated, called Japs, and told to go home. Instead they enlisted to protect a country they thanked for giving them a chance to finally be free.

 

[darkplanets]

Honestly the bottom line is that under free speech it's allowed. I can't argue that. I can, however, take issue to the timing and taste of these leaks. While wikileaks is free to publish these (potentially), as many other people have said certain things are meant to be classified, and should stay that way. Transparency is nice, but its naive to assume that everything should be open and revealed.

For example, if you talk bad about your co-workers in the privacy of your home to other friends, do you think its prudent for those conversations to be published for the whole company to see? Those diplomatic cable releases were no different.

Wikileaks isn't doing anything wrong legally, at least according to the last supreme court ruling. Personally I think disseminating classified information should be a crime, but hey, that's just the way it goes. Maybe that policy will change, who knows. As for Pfc Manning, or whoever leaked all of this off of Spirnet, they should be tried for treason. Leaking classified information in the military, especially when you have access, should not be tolerated; I mean wikileaks had to do redaction and vetting for already potentially damaging information.

Just my two cents.

 

[res1233]

Um, no. You had to have just made that up AND not read through this thread. There are at least two other good reasons, one of which has nothing to do with what the app actually does.

Update 2: Business Insider received word from Apple that the application was in fact pulled due to the content and not App Store rules regarding donations:
We reached out to Apple for comment on why it pulled the app and here's what a representative told us:

"We removed WikiLeaks because it violated developer guidelines. An app must comply with all local laws. It may not put an individual or target group in harms way."

Apple declined to elaborate on the "individual or target group" it had determined was placed in "harms way" by the application.

.

 

[Earendil]

They have put down hundreds of hours into trying to protect civilians,

Citation required. Your statement would seem to contradict the results. And in any case, if you think "hundreds" of hours is enough to make it ethical, would you equate a human life to about a hundred hours of work?

unlike those U.S. soldiers who couldn't wait 20 seconds for a civilian to cross the street before they blew up a building containing three suspected terrorists, killing an innocent bystander.

1. In a court of law, what "Some other guy did" might help you justify your case. But since we aren't talking about law, but what is "Right", it's irrelevant what a soldier did someplace. In Ethics, it matters not that someone else did something worse, but what YOU do.

2. A guy held up in a server room with al the time in the world, and the decisions he makes, is not comparable to what a soldier faces in the heat of battle. Now, whether they should be in there in the first place is a different debate, but as far as a single human, and a single decision goes, I do not think the two are remotely comparable. And even IF they were comparable, see point #1.

When such things happen, it is the duty of every honest man to report it so that people can be held responsible.

Yes sir. But me reporting a crime that you committed does not equate to me publishing your diary and financial records to the world. There is a sharp line there. I'm not sure why no one can see this. Wikileaks should have used some common sense and discretion. The lack of any sort of care for the effect (which is what an unedited spam of information equates to) is negligent and unethical. If a lawyer spammed that much irrelevant information to a court room when trying to prove a case, the judge would throw the lawyer out of court.

 

[Earendil]

.
Update 2: Business Insider received word from Apple that the application was in fact pulled due to the content and not App Store rules regarding donations:
We reached out to Apple for comment on why it pulled the app and here's what a representative told us:

"We removed WikiLeaks because it violated developer guidelines. An app must comply with all local laws. It may not put an individual or target group in harms way."

Apple declined to elaborate on the "individual or target group" it had determined was placed in "harms way" by the application.

I stand somewhat corrected. It would be nice if you had provided that in your initial post. That you didn't still implies to me that you had not read through the thread. In any case, if that is their reasoning than it still has nothing to do with wikileaks and that it is top secret documents. It just shows that wikileaks made an ethical mistake and other companies, with the law behind them, are not joining in.

If Wikileaks had synthesized the data down to just the illegal government acts, and taken the time to hold in reserve information that could cause another person harm or death until a trial was in place, than Apple would have nothing to stand behind. Instead wikileaks, in a grand case of not giving a frack, spammed everything in its entirety.

 

[Ironduke]

I didnt know how facist the USA was until wikileaks opened my eyes!

God Bless Assange

 

[Andronicus]

Not one soldier or person as been killed by the information wikileaks has released. All you hear from big brother is a script that's released anytime anything is leaked. Oh, wait. I guess Hilary Clinton was embarrassed by it…

 

[takao]

remember the slogan "think different" ? should be "think establishment" now

 

[res1233]

Yes sir. But me reporting a crime that you committed does not equate to me publishing your diary and financial records to the world. There is a sharp line there. I'm not sure why no one can see this. Wikileaks should have used some common sense and discretion. The lack of any sort of care for the effect (which is what an unedited spam of information equates to) is negligent and unethical. If a lawyer spammed that much irrelevant information to a court room when trying to prove a case, the judge would throw the lawyer out of court.

I agree. There is a point at which they've gone too far. The media in general doesn't seem to even remember the days when they would limit themselves to what was RIGHT to report, as opposed to what they CAN report. Nowadays, they'll do anything for a story, regardless of who they hurt, and that is unethical.